Breakdown of intention-based outcome evaluation after transient right temporoparietal junction deactivation.

People judge the nature of human behaviors based on underlying intentions and possible outcomes. Recent studies have demonstrated a causal role of the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ) in modulating both intention and intention-based outcome evaluations during social judgments. However, these studies mainly used hypothetical scenarios with socially undesirable contexts (bad/neutral intentions and bad/neutral outcomes), leaving the role of rTPJ in judging good intentions and good outcomes unclear. In the current study, participants were instructed to make goodness judgments as a third party toward the monetary allocations from one proposer to another responder. Critically, in some cases, the initial allocation by the proposer could be reversed by the computer, yielding combinations of good/bad intentions (of the proposer) with good/bad outcomes (for the responder). Anodal (n = 20), cathodal (n = 21), and sham (n = 21) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the rTPJ were randomly assigned to 62 subjects to further examine the effects of stimulation over the rTPJ in modulating intention-based outcome evaluation. Compared to the anodal and sham stimulations, cathodal tDCS over the rTPJ reduced the goodness ratings of good/bad outcomes when the intentions were good, whereas it showed no significant effect on outcome ratings under unknown and bad intentions. Our results provide the first evidence that deactivating the rTPJ modulates outcome evaluation in an intention-dependent fashion, mainly by reducing the goodness rating towards both good/bad outcomes when the intentions are good. Our findings argue for a causal role of the rTPJ in modulating intention-based social judgments and point to nuanced effects of rTPJ modulation.

Development and validation of the Chinese version of the perceived partner responsiveness scale (C-PPRS).

BACKGROUND: Perceived partner responsiveness (PPR) refers to the belief that the relational partner knows and is sensitive and supportive. Instead of translating the English version of the Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale (PPRS) into Chinese, this study aimed to construct and analyze the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale (C-PPRS). On the one hand, some words in the original scale are inappropriate for the Chinese due to cultural differences. On the other hand, we intended the scale to apply just to persons in romantic relationships, not to friends or roommates. METHOD: We conducted two studies. In the first study, 441 participants who completed the C-PPRS were randomly divided into two samples for exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Concurrent validity was assessed in a group of 224 participants who completed the C-PPRS and the Quality of Relationship Index in the second study. RESULTS: The results indicated that the four-factor model (understanding, intimacy, acceptance, and trust) was a feasible representation of the C-PPRS factor structure (χ2/df = 2.27, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.05) and had robust internal consistency reliability (alpha = 0.90) and concurrent validity (moderately correlated with the Quality of Relationship Index, r = 0.66, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PPR is a concept to understand the psychological manifestations of a person who believes that his or her partner is concerned with core characteristics of the self. The C-PPRS has good psychometric characteristics to evaluate such manifestations and can be applied to future intimacy research.